{"id":102143,"date":"2001-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001"},"modified":"2018-12-18T22:11:21","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T16:41:21","slug":"koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 3445<\/div>\n
Author: D Varma<\/div>\n
Bench: D Varma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 D.S.R. Varma, J.<\/p>\n
1. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction dated 21-4-1997 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C. No. 126\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
2. The accused 1 to 4 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-BIPC The Court below on evidence found A-1, A-3 and A-4 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the offence only under Section 304-B I.P.C. and passed no separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., as the Court below felt that substantive sentence is imposed for the major offence under Section 304-B, separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A is not necessary. As A-2 was not found guilty for the said charges, he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, A-1, A-3 and A-4 filed this criminal appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The story of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
The deceased Koneti Malleswari is the daughter of P.Ws.l and 2. P.W. 3 is her younger brother. A-1 is her husband. A-2 is the younger brother of A-1. A-3 and A-4 are the parents of A-1 and A-2. P.Ws.l and 2 performed the marriage of the deceased with A-1 on 22-8-1992 at K. Kotapadu. As agreed P.Ws. 1 and 2 paid an amount of Rs. 10,000\/-to A-1 and presented him 1\/4th tula of gold ring. After the marriage, the deceased was sent to the house of the accused at Chodavaram. A-1 and the deceased lead married life peacefully for a month. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the de ceased for additional dowry of Rs. 5,000\/-, a T.V. and a radio. The deceased informed the same to P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1 gave a sewing machine to the deceased and expressed his inability before A-1 to give additional dowry of Rs. 5,000\/-, T.V. and Radio. Having been not satisfied with the sewing machine, A-1 and the remaining accused ill-treated and assaulted the deceased. P.W.I tried to convince A-1 that he was not able to meet the demands due to his weak financial position and promised to fulfill the demands after some time. As the accused did not stop the ill-treatment and harassment, to the deceased and sent her away to her parents’ house, P.W.I requested P.W.7 and other marriage elders to. convince the accused not to press for their demands and further requested them to advise the accused to treat the deceased properly. Thereafter P,W. 1 sent the deceased to her in-laws’ house along with his eldest son, instructing him to tell the in-laws’ of the deceased that P.W. 1 would meet their demands within a short time. Subsequently P.W. 7 and other marriage elders came to the house of P.W. 1 and stated that the accused were not paying any heed to their words. On 1-2-1994 the deceased came to the house of P.W. 1 at K. Kotapadu to see her sick mother P.W. 2. At that time, the deceased informed P.Ws. 1 and 2 about the harassment and ill-treatment and demand for additional dowry and other articles. On 5-2-1994, the A-1 came to the house of P.W. 1 and at that time, P.Ws. 1 and 2 requested him not to press for the additional dowry, T.V. and radio, as their financial position was not good and that they would meet his demands within a short time. Then A-1 told them that he would treat the deceased properly and asked them to send the deceased along with him. On 7-2-1994 P.W. 1 sent the deceased to the house of the accused along with P.W. 3 at about 1.00 p.m. On the same night P.W. 6, came to the house of P.W, 1 and informed that the deceased died. Immediately P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased dead under suspicious circumstances. On 8-2-1994 at 10.50hours, P.W. 1 lodged a report in Chodavaram Police Station and basing on the report, P.W. 12, registered a case in Crime No. 11\/1994 under Section 304-B I.P.C. against the accused. After the inquest by P.W. 10, the M.R.O., the dead body of the deceased was sent to P.W. 9, the doctor for conducting autopsy. P.W. 9 along with another doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to suffocation. In the questionnaire both the doctors opined that the death of the deceased is more suggestive case of homicidal. Initially the Court framed the charge under Section 302 and 498-A I.P.C. Subsequently at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, the Section of law was altered to one under Section 304B I.P.C., on the ground that the material on record discloses the offence under Section 304-B only and not under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly the trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, convicted A-1, A-3 and A-4 and as the prosecution could not prove the guilt of A-2, acquitted him of all the charges.\n<\/p>\n
4. In support of it’s the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-22 and on behalf of the (sic) no witness was examined and no document was marked.\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused – appellants submitted that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record while convicting the accused. He further submitted that no specific overt acts have been atributed to the accused by the prosecution witnesses and in such a case, the conviction cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
6. In order to connect the accused with the crime and also in order to meet the contention of the learned Senior Counsel it is necessary to refer to the evidence on record. The important witnesses are P.Ws. 1. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9. The other prosecution witnesses do not throw much light and as such I feel it is not necessary to discuss their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
7. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased was given in marriage to A-1 in 1992; that at the time of marriage he paid dowry of Rs. 10,000\/- and 1\/4th tula of gold ring; that after the marriage the deceased joined her husband at Chodavaram; that the deceased and A-1 lived happily for one month; that thereafter A-1, A-3 and A-4 sent his daughter to his house demanding her to bring Rs. 5,000\/-, T.V. and radio; that he expressed his in ability because of his financial positions and promised to meet their demands after some time; that he sent his daughter to her in-laws’ house; that on 1-2-1994 they went and brought the deceased to their house as his wife fell sick; that the deceased told them that the accused were ill-treating her for not meeting their demands and they were not providing food; that his daughter further told them that the accused are stating that they required money for their business and asked her to bring the money; that he sent his daughter along with his eldest son to her in-laws’ place instructing his son to tell the in-laws’ of the deceased that he would send Rs. 5,000\/- as demanded by them afterwards; that he informed the marriage elders about the harassment by the in-laws of his daughter for money; that P.W. 7 is one among the marriage elders; that the elders informed him that they will look into the matter; that after some time the marriage elders informed him that the in-laws of the deceased were not hearing them; that on i-2-1994 his daughter came to their house to see his ailing wife; that on 7-2-1994 at about 1.00 p.m., he sent his daughter to her in-laws house along with his second son Ramesh; that on the same day at 10.00 p.m. two persons from Chodavaram came and informed him that his daughter died and; that on 8-2-1994, he went to the police station and gave Ex. P-1 report.\n<\/p>\n
8. In the cross-examination he stated that A-1 to A-4 sent his daughter to his house to bring Rs. 5,000\/-, T.V. and radio. In his cross-examination the defence attempted to point out certain omissions in Ex. P-l report given by P.W. 1. Except the suggestions, no useful information could be elicited from his cross-examination to discredit his testimony.\n<\/p>\n
9. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence also runs in the same lines as that of P.W. 1. However, she deposed that on 5-2-1994, A-1 came to their house; that herself and P.W. 1 requested him not to press for the additional dowry, T.V. and Radio in view of the weak financial position and; that at the instance of A-1, the deceased was sent to the house of the accused on 7-2-1994 along with her second son.\n<\/p>\n
10. In the cross-examination she admitted that she did not see personally any harassment caused to the deceased. She also stated that she did not state before the police or before the M.R.O. that as per the demand of the accused a sewing machine was given to A-1. Except this nothing comes put from her cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
11. P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. He also deposed on tfce same lines as that of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on all material aspects.\n<\/p>\n
12. P.W. 5 is the neighbour of the accused. He deposed that he went to see the dead body of the deceased; that some persons in the mob gathered there told him that A-3 and A-4 went to the cinema at Poorna theatre; that he went to the said theatre and informed A-3 and A-4 about the death of the deceased at 8.00 p.m. i.e., during interval.\n<\/p>\n
13. He was cross-examined, but nothing could be elicited to discredit his testimony.\n<\/p>\n
14. P.W. 7 deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 22-8-1992; that it was agreed between both the parties that an amount of Rs. 10,000\/-and Vithtula of gold has to be given to A-1; that accordingly P.W. 1 gave Rs. 10,000\/- and 1\/4th tula of gold to A-1 in his presence; that he was informed by P.W. 1 that the accused were harassing the deceased for more dowry; that they went to the accused to convince them not to press for more dowry and to treat the deceased properly; A-3 and A-4 stated that it was not proper on their part to press for more dowry; that A-3 and A-4 did not pay any head to their advise and they retaliated against them saying that it was none of their business to interfere in their family affairs; that they informed P.W. 1 that A-3 and A-4 were not paying heed to their advise and; that they advised P.W. 1 to some how meet the demands of the accused, so that there will not be any trouble to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
15. He further deposed that one and half year thereafter the deceased died. He again stated that the deceased died one and half years after her marriage. It can be seen that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 22-8-1992 and her death had taken place on 7-2-1994. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased lived only 1 1\/2 years after the marriage. Hence, it can be inferred that the deceased died 1 1\/2 years after her marriage and, therefore, the clarification given by P.W. 7 is correct and can be taken into account.\n<\/p>\n
16. Even though this witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing useful could be elicited by the defence.\n<\/p>\n
17. P.W. 9 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that he along with Dr. A. Priyadarshini conducted the postmortem examination and found the following injuries :-\n<\/p>\n
EXTERNAL INJURIES<\/p>\n
1. An old scar of 1 1\/2 cm diameter over the left fore arm on flexor aspect.\n<\/p>\n
2. A contusion of 2 cm x 2 cm over the lateral aspect of left thigh at the junction of upper 1\/3rd and middle 1\/3 blue in colour.\n<\/p>\n
3. An abrasion of 1\/4 cm diameter over the dorsum of right hand, brown in colour.\n<\/p>\n
4. An abrasion of 1\/4 cm dia over the posterior aspect of left elbow joint, black in colour.\n<\/p>\n
Internal Examination :\n<\/p>\n
Thorax normal, Hyoid bone normal and intact. All the ribs are normal. Heart is normal in size and shape. Reddish brown in colour, chambers empty.\n<\/p>\n
Right lung : Oedamatous reddish brown in colour, cut Section is congested.\n<\/p>\n
Left Lung : Oedamatous, reddish brown in colour cut Section congested.\n<\/p>\n
Stomach : contains semi digested food material about 150 grms. Like rice particles, brown in colour, mucosa norma.\n<\/p>\n
Liver : Normal in size and shape, reddish brown in colour, cut Section congested.\n<\/p>\n
Gall bladder : Full <\/p>\n
Spleen: Normal in size and shape reddish violet in colour, cut Section congested.\n<\/p>\n
Right kidney : Normal in size and shape, reddish brown in colour, cut Section congested.\n<\/p>\n
Left Kidney : Normal size and shape, reddish brown in colour, cut Section congested.\n<\/p>\n
Intestines : Pale, reddish in colour.\n<\/p>\n
Uterus : Normal, none gravid fesus, cut Section empty.\n<\/p>\n
Bladder: Empty.\n<\/p>\n
Head : Menings intact, brain is gray in colour and normal. No fractures seen over the vault and base of skull.\n<\/p>\n
The following viscera are preserved for chemical analysis:\n<\/p>\n
1. Stomach with contents.\n<\/p>\n
2. Intestines with contents.\n<\/p>\n
3. Part of liver.\n<\/p>\n
4. Right kidney.\n<\/p>\n
5. Preservative used i.e., saturated solution of sodium cloriae.\n<\/p>\n
P.W. 9, the doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to suffocation about less than 24 hours duration prior to the post-mortem examination. He further deposed that all the injuries noted are ante mortem in nature. He issued Ex. P-15 the post-mortem certificate. He further opined that as per the observations, the death of the deceased was homicidal. He also stated that the soft object must have been used to obstruct the entry of passage of air into the air-ways i.e., both the nostrils and mouth.\n<\/p>\n
18. In the cross-examination he expressed his opinion that closing of air passage of a woman aged 18 years is not so easy and that it depends upon the strength of the person who causes the suffocation and also the strength of the person upon whom the suffocation is caused and that two persons of the same age of the deceased with the same built can cause the kind of suffocation which is done in this case and the duration of the suffocation till the death of the deceased is of five minutes. Except this nothing useful can be elicited by the defence in his cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
19, From the above evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was given in marriage to A-1 on 22-8-1992 and at that time Rs. 10,000\/- and 1\/4th tula gold ring were presented. Being not satisfied with the amount and the gold ring, the accused demanded for additional dowry. The parents of the deceased also gave sewing machine to the accused. In spite of which, the accused have persistently demanded more dowry. When A-1 came to the house of P.W. 1 on 5-2-1994, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 requested him not to press for more dowry. In the meanwhile, P.W. 7 and other marriage elders, at whose instance, the marriage was performed also requested the accused not to press for more dowry and also advised them to treat the deceased properly. They further told the accused that P.W. 1 would meet their demands after some time. On that A-3 and A-4 told them not to interfere with their family affairs. On 7-2-1994 P.Ws. 1 and 2 sent their deceased daughter to the house of the accused along with their son at 1.00 p.m. and on the same day 10.00 p.m., they received the information regarding the death of the deceased. Further as per the evidence of P.W. 5; at the time of ocurrence of offence, A-3 and A- 5 were watching cinema and upon coming to know about the death of the deceased through P.W. 5 at 8.00 p.m. i.e., during interval of the cinema, they came to the house.\n<\/p>\n
20. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is consistent and their evidence is further corroborated by P.W. 7, who is an independent witness and who was the mediator to the marriage of the deceased with the accused. He played an important role in fixing the dowry etc. and hence he is interested witness in both the parties. His testimony carries much weight than that of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and undisputedly his evidence corroborates the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. Further Ex. P-1 report, which was given on 8-2-1994, also reveals about the demand of additional dowry and the harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused. Hence, Ex. P-1 is in corroboration to the evidence of prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
21. The evidence on record further reveals that only A-1 was present on 7-2-1994 during the incident and A-3 and A-4 were not present at that time. This was spoken to by P.W. 5. According to him A-3 and A-4 were at the cinema theatre. Therefore, A-1 alone can be held responsible. At this juncture it is important to note the evidence of the doctor P.W. 9. His evidence reveals that the death of the deceased is of homicidal. As there are no eye-witnesses to the case, it is necessary to examine whether the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are present in the present set of facts. A reading of Section 304-B reveals that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, on in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called as “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In the instant case, the death has occurred within seven years of the marriage and soon before her death the prosecution established the harassment in connection with demand for dowry by examining P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 7. Further even the doctor P.W. 9 opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal, since there are no eye-witnesses it is difficult to fix anybody and, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it can safely be construed that it was a dowry death, which had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
22. While commenting on the term “soon before” the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Kans Raj’s case  (supra) held that “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight -jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. It further held that if the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be ‘soon before the death’. In the same judgment, the Apex Court also held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts atribute to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death. These observations are made by the Supreme Court obviously to see that the near relations of the husband, who are not connected with the offence are not roped into the criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
23. In this context at the cost of repetition it has to be noted that P.Ws. 1 to 3 only made A-3 and A-4 as parties to the harassment and cruelty along with A-1, but they did not attribute any specific overt act against them and their evidence is vague in this regard. Further the other circumstances is that it is A-1 who visited the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and requested them to send the deceased to his house and only upon such request the deceased was sent to his house on 7-2-1994. P.W. 7, who is one of the marriage elders, also deposed that when he advised the accused they did not pay any heed and A-3 and A-4 told him not to interfere with their family affairs.This would only indicate that A-3 and A-4 did not like the involvement of the me- diators in the family affairs and such family affairs obviously could be disputed and resolved between A-1 and the deceased. What role A-3 and A-4 has actually played in the course of harassment and cruelty was not specifically spoken to by any of the prosecution witnesses. But the accusation against A-1 was all through present and established. Therefore, in-view of these doubtful circumstances as against A-3 and A-4, it is not safe to come to the conclusion that they are also parties along with A-1 in harassing the deceased. As already observed above, since the death had occurrd otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage and further as per the opinion of P.W. 9, the doctor that the death of homicidal, I have no hesitation to hold A-1 responsible for the harassment and the death of the deceased. In view of the above reasons, the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the accused applies only with regard to A-3 and A-4.\n<\/p>\n
24. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the order as under :- The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below as against A-1 is confirmed and conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below against A-3 and A-4 is set aside. The bail bonds executed by A-3 and A-4 shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
25. Accordingly the criminal appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 3445 Author: D Varma Bench: D Varma JUDGMENT D.S.R. Varma, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction dated 21-4-1997 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C. No. 126\/1994. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKoneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T16:41:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T16:41:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3740,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\",\"name\":\"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T16:41:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T16:41:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T16:41:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001"},"wordCount":3740,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001","name":"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T16:41:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koneti-venkata-rao-and-ors-vs-state-on-19-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Koneti Venkata Rao And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102143","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}